[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Honestly....

Louise, Carol,
As you know, I'm not talking from my own research, just what I have read by Ilyenkov and A I Meshcheryakov, so I am open to being proved wrong by people who have actually researched the topic. But I actually don't see the observations that either of you have raised as contradicting the point I wanted to make.
It is obvious that human organisms are born (or gestated, whatever the word is) with characteristics which are only later realized. If there is no basis for flying in the human baby, it cannot learn to fly. But whatever is in the organism is only realized though interaction with other people in culturally determined forms of use of cultural artefacts.
The "Honestly ..." thread began with Eric counterposing innateness to intersubjective construction. Apart from the need to distinguish intersubjective from the societal and cultural, my claim was (1) these two forms are not mutually exclusive alternatives, and (2) even the propensity for "intersubjective construction" was not simply innate, but had to be fostered. In other words, exactly the point you are making Carol. Left without responsive adults, a child cannot develop a social sense. 

Andy

Carol Macdonald wrote:

Andy
I am not sure that I agree with you about there being no innate drive. There is psychological data to show that orphan children, who are simply dumped in a cot and has no interaction with a caregiver (except for getting a bottle) either grow up impoverished socially, or worse, die. Luckily, since we know that, crèches are a bit more caring. 
Carol
On 26 April 2010 16:52, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: 

    Eric, I think it quite possible to hold at the same time different
    positions on intersubjectivity and on the question of
    innate/acquired. There is no doubt that there are social animals
    whose sociality is innate and who can therefore acquire new skills
    socially. But I believe CHAT is a current of thought which holds
    that becoming human is possible only through interaction with other
    people using culturally acquired artefacts (i.e., intersubjectivity
    plus artefacts), but even the tendency to engage in interaction is
    acquired only because other human beings around the child "summon"
    the child to interaction. There is no innate drive to sociality in
    human beings. A. I. Meshcheryakov's book is definitive on this
    question I believe.

    Does that answer your question, Eric? I wasn't sure I got your
    meaning exactly.

    Andy


    ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org <mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:

        ....didn't realize equating Piaget with intersubjectivity would
        create a conflaguration of misunderstanding.

        Am I incorrect in my understanding of intersubjectivity?  I
        believe it to be based on innate abilities rather than
        appropriated skills.  Perhaps Bahktin did not write on this, I
        must admit I am shallow in my understanding of Bahktin.

        Initially in my study of LSV and the CHAT tradition I was a
        person who prioritized innate abilities but as I have studied
        and practiced teaching I have come to  realize that being human
        IS developed via interactions and attachments.  Biological
        genetics must play into it but I have a hard time believing that
        intersubjectivity is biological in nature.

        Am I talking in circles or drowing in misunderstanding?

        eric
        _______________________________________________
        xmca mailing list
        xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
        http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
    Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/
    <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> +61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden
    An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity: http://www.brill.nl/scss



    _______________________________________________
    xmca mailing list
    xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
    http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca




--
6 Andover Road
Westdene
Johannesburg 2092
011 673 9265  082 562 1050



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity: http://www.brill.nl/scss 


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca